Massachusetts Conference Edition
Return
to main page
Read
National Edition
Read the UC News Spotlight E-Newsletter
Return
to main page
Read
National Edition
Read the UC News Spotlight E-Newsletter
by the Rev. Mr. Martin Copenhaver, Senior Pastor of the Wellesley Congregational Church
December 08/January 09
Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt of the Rev. Mr. Martin Copenhaver’s keynote address to the 2008 Annual Meeting attendees. His entire speech is available in text and as a recording at www.macucc.org/2008AM/initial.htm.
It is indeed a special privilege to be able to speak with my brothers and sisters of the Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of Christ, and most especially to be able to address a subject about which I have something like evangelical zeal. And it seems fitting to announce here – in my beloved home conference – my desire to foment a revolution. The revolution I have in mind is in relation to how we conduct meetings and make decisions in congregations and other settings of the United Church of Christ.
And what better place to start a revolution than in Massachusetts? ...
As you know, the Congregational tradition traces back to England in the early 17th Century. At that time there were those who felt called to a different kind of church than what was represented in the state church, the Church of England. Perhaps the most distinctive characteristic of the Congrega-tionalists was their belief that no individual – be it a bishop, priest or lay leader – is fully equipped to discern and follow God’s will.
These early Congregationalists believed that the workings of the Holy Spirit can be discerned in community by receptive hearts that are molded in prayer. Indeed, the very name “Congregational” derives from the understanding that it is the congregation, informed by scripture and molded in prayer, that is best able to discern what Christ would have them do. They put into practice their understanding that the gathered community is the true vessel of the Spirit of Christ – a term that they used often. They met often and their meetings were seen as opportunities to encounter God in their midst. That is, they were more like worship than legislative sessions.
The community did not gather for decision-making as much as for discernment. (I would define discernment as “seeking to figure out what God is up to and what God would have us do in response.”) They listened to one another, not out of some humanist notion that people of opposing views are worthy of respect, but because one can never know who the Spirit will choose to speak through on any given occasion.
In other words, these forebears in the Congregational tradition approached decision-making very much like the Quakers do – only they talked more. Or, as my colleague Chris Braudaway-Bauman puts it, Congregational meetings are Quaker meetings for extroverts.
Increasingly I am convinced that the Congregational form of polity is a real mess without a high doctrine of the Holy Spirit – the kind of mess that might prompt someone like Henry Robert [author of the guide, ‘Robert’s Rules of Order’] to craft some rules to bring some order out of chaos.
When we do not actively and continually call upon the Holy Spirit, this form of polity collapses like a lung with the wind knocked out of it. Perhaps it is unfair to say that much of our rich heritage had been lost along the way. But this I do know: it is quite different from how I heard people – both laity and clergy – interpret our tradition.
What I heard was: “Here we don’t have bishops to tell us what to do, just local churches ordering our own affairs, doing and believing what we think is right.”
Or, “Here the individual is free to believe as he or she wants. It is up to each person to decide what God’s will is for him or her.”
Or, “A Congregational church is a democracy. We air our own differing points of view and then make important decisions by voting.”
Obviously, these understandings do not begin to reflect the richness and depth of our Congregational tradition. Rather, they represent little more than the hollow shell of that tradition.
Contrary to what is commonly assumed, Congregational polity is not about the individual. It is not about asserting ourselves. A “majority rules” way of thinking is what happens when we take God out of the congregational process. It is not that no one can tell us what to do. Rather we seek together to discern what Christ would have us do. We listen to one another because we are listening for the voice of the Holy Spirit. We wait upon the Holy Spirit, as did the people at Pentecost, the Spirit that alone is able to fashion understanding and unity out of diversity....
I think our folks are tired – I know that I am tired – of attending church meetings that are run like they could take place anywhere else – in the town meeting or the civic organization.
I believe that church meetings – all church meetings – are supposed to feel more like prayer meetings than like business meetings. And, in fact, I think we need to do everything we can to fight the kind of dualism that can creep into our thinking, the kind of dualism that divides the life of the church into a spiritual side and a business side.
William Barclay tells this wonderful story about a church meeting that was taking place in the time of an emergency: “The meeting was constituted with prayer by the chair. He addressed God as, “Almighty and eternal God, whose grace is sufficient for all things.” He used the usual phrases that all people use in prayer. Then when the prayer was finished the business part of the meeting began, and the chair who had just prayed introduced the business by saying, ‘Gentlemen, the situation in this Church is hopeless, and nothing can be done.’”
No, I don’t want to go to any more meetings where the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit, is not invited to stay for the entire meeting. I believe a sign of spiritual health would be that prayer would be as much a part of a meeting of the Board of Finance as it would be at a meeting of the Deacons. In fact, these days, perhaps we need even more prayer in such quarters.
Mind you, I understand that spiritual discernment – as I have outlined it here – is truly countercultural. It uses silence, it requires that we take our time, it redefines our precious sense of individualism.
One other implication of spiritual discernment is a potential redistribution of power. If you must listen to each person with attentiveness because you never know who the Holy Spirit will choose to speak through at any given moment, then we must listen with as much care to a stranger as to a long-standing church member, we must listen as attentively to a young person as to a mature adult. Because you never know.
I firmly believe that if we are able to approach decision making as a spiritual practice of discernment, we will not leave our church meetings enervated and discouraged, but rather energized and inspired. Rather than grumbling about our meetings, we’ll be offering testimony.
If we are able to approach decision making as a spiritual practice of discernment, the most engaging conversations will no longer take place in the parking lot after the meeting, but in the meeting itself. Our meetings no longer will seem like we are just getting the business of the church done. Instead, it will feel more like we are going about the business of being the church, a Spirit-led church, led by the Spirit of Christ in all settings.